George Pell, Frank Brennan, George Williams and being agin the Pellist heresy

(Above: today's most pressing issue ... will a bill of rights prevent the intertubes from being littered with bad Monty Python sketches?)

A bill of rights for Australia is one of those issues that's hovered in the peripheral vision, just out of sight, apart from the regular and reliable rants by Janet Albrechtsen against the notion.

That's almost an automatic argument in favor of it, but not quite. After all the United States has had a bill of rights for some time, and look what it's done for the average American in terms of medical care and sharing in bail out bonuses.

Even more problematic, the committee inquiring into the matter in Australia has been headed by Father Frank Brennan, SJ, and as a Jesuit, as intellectually slippery as an eel seeking to avoid turning into a Japanese unagi dish.

One of the more entertaining moments in the Q & A which brought Brennan up against Christopher Hitchens was this:

CHRISTOPHER HITCHENS: But that's what secular means. But in that case I think it behoves the religious to say what they genuinely mean. Now, Frank just talked about homosexuality as if the church had never condemned it as a mortal sin.

AUDIENCE MEMBER: Yes. Yes. Yes.

CHRISTOPHER HITCHENS: I mean, it's extraordinary. I would not know that you were a member of the Society of Jesus, except that it was a very Jesuitical point you were making and concealed your main one.

TONY JONES: I'd like to...

CHRISTOPHER HITCHENS: And I'm sorry, Waleed, it's the same. Islam says the same. You cannot be a good Muslim and publicly be a homosexual. Why don't you...

AUDIENCE MEMBER: Absolutely.

CHRISTOPHER HITCHENS: ...given the wonderful freedom of a secular conversation, when no one is going to say anything about your right to say it, why don't you say what you actually think? How about that?

Brennan's had previous goes at Hitchens, most notably in his Book Review: Frank Brennan answers atheist manifestos.

Brennan flails about at considerable length before concluding thus about Hitchens, Onfray and Pataki:

Sadly these three intelligent, gifted and illiberal authors have demonstrated that it is not only Islamic fundamentalists who fail to understand the rules for civil discourse and engagement in the post September 11 public square.

What, you might ask, has September 11th to do with civil discourse and engagement? Well nothing really, except as a rhetorical flourish to establish that three atheist writers penning books are somehow engaged in an activity comparable to Islamic fundamentalists blowing up buildings.

On the other hand, I owe the SJ a vote of thanks because it was arguing with one of their representatives over many slippery eel-like days in a circuitous repetitious bout of illogical logic attempting to justify faith that saw me slip away from the Catholic church.

But then there's always something profoundly irrational about attempts at rational discussions of faith, and nothing more problematic than a member of a religious body such as the SJ (who after all had a role to play in the Inquisition) talking about the virtues of religious freedom - especially given the ongoing persecution of minorities and women, not just by fundamentalist Islamics, but by the Church of Rome (ask your family priest for a supply of condoms or a blessing at a gay marriage).

The Jesuits have always skillfully managed to be a part of Rome, but not of Rome, members of the Church but somehow intellectually independent, in a way that always reminds me of David Copperfield - not the book, but the magician.

So the activities of Brennan as Chair of the human rights consultation have always carried some baggage for me, not helped by a trawl through the website devoted to the matter (here), with its bright perky 'What's new?' and 'Share your views' trinkets of care and consultation, offered up as baubles of distraction while the real work goes on behind the scenes.

But then came a chance today to re-visit one of my favorite philosophical discussions - choosing the lesser of two evils - with a wondrous offering by George Pell under the header Ideology dressed up as social justice.

Given Pell's track record, this would be a bit like writing a column about the church with the header Fundamentalist theology dressed up as social justice.

Never mind, the important thing is that whatever version of a human rights bill you might come up with, Pell is agin it. That's as potent an argument for the case for a human rights bill as I could imagine.

Naturally Pell dresses up his argument with a statement of just how much he cares, in much the same way as crocodiles are supposed to weep before sitting down to eat:

The Christian churches strongly support human rights and their attendant responsibilities. But religious freedom should not be eroded by stealth.

Like a typical pagan lobbyist, Pell's piece - when you boil it down, and it takes a lot of boiling, like making soup from a galah - is all about me, me, me. Or church power, church power, church power.

Strangely, the Brennan report is weak on defending human rights. Stranger still, it wants the Human Rights Commission to have more power to investigate breaches of the definitive list of rights. The commission is presently inquiring into whether religious freedom is compatible with human rights. It doesn't even understand that religious freedom is a fundamental human right.

Well surely you have the right to go bark at the moon on a Sunday on a regular basis in the belief that it cures piles, but do you have the right to deny your child medical services on the basis that the mumbo jumbo witch doctor you've employed will exorcise the evil spirits and thereby cure it of disease" Or refuse blood transfusions, or operations, or otherwise maltreat the child while in the grip of a religious mania so deranged that the child dies?

There is no doubt that if Australia gets a charter of rights, upfront or by stealth, it will be used against religious schools, hospitals and charities by other people who don't like religious freedom and think it shouldn't be a human right. The target will be the protection in anti-discrimination laws that allow religious schools to exercise a preference in employment for people who share their faith.

Uh huh, that's the nub of it right there. The ongoing right of fundies - be they Muslims, Catholics, the Exclusive Brethren or scientologists to go on running hospitals and schools, putting out their paws for government funding, while teaching creationism or any other loony tune they happen to like at taxpayers expense - and if you don't like the club, then they reserve the right to kick you out of the club, sack you, and discriminate in ways that suit them.

By golly, suddenly a bill of rights is sounding tasty. Is there anything else that could make it appealing?

If these protections are to be revised, it should be done by MPs answerable to the people, not by judges or human rights commissars.

Um, but the MPs would be drawing up the bill, and could alter it in the future, on the basis of experience and changing circumstances. Or so I'm told by an alarmingly rational and considered column by George Williams under the header The people have spoken - and they want protection.

Opponents of a human rights act now also argue it should only be passed after a referendum. The 1999 poll on the republic, our last national referendum, cost nearly $70 million. The outlay today could be much higher. Quite apart from the high cost, the idea is misconceived. Referendums are held to change the constitution, and have never been to approve an ordinary act of Parliament.

It is odd to see people who had professed such strong support for parliamentary sovereignty now arguing that Parliament is not fit to pass an ordinary human rights statute without first seeking popular support at a special poll. This basic inconsistency reveals the referendum argument for what it is, a disingenuous attempt to head off reform at an extra cost of tens of millions of dollars.

Even a successful referendum would be counterproductive for a human rights act. One of the merits of such an act, as opposed to a bill of rights like the US constitution, is that Parliament can amend the law over time in light of experience and changing community views. Passing a human rights act only after a successful referendum would undermine this goal. It would make political leaders understandably wary about making changes to the law, lest any change be seen as inconsistent with the will of the people as expressed at the referendum.

An expectation would likely emerge that further changes should also be put to a vote. In effect, Australia would have an act of Parliament with the unique status of being as unchangeable as the constitution itself.

But back to the prattling pious Pell. What else has he got to offer?

Under the British Human Rights Act, religious freedom claims have almost never succeeded. The Victorian charter's protection of freedom of religion and conscience has been shown to mean nothing against the more important claim to a right to abortion. We can expect a similar hierarchy of rights under a federal charter, with religious freedom well and truly at the bottom.

Yippee, you mean the right of a woman to control her body, and not be subjected to pressure from religious freaks and clowns on the matter of abortion, sex and so many other issues of life I can't begin to list them here (including but not limited to the ability to show your face, wear a short skirt, and put on bright lipstick)? You mean finally the meddling prating priests would be put in their place?

All this, and keeping a clear distinction between secular and religious hospital, medical and education systems, with the money going to public rather than private schools with fair employment policies?

Things in Australia are not too bad, but religious freedom is under pressure. The push for a charter of rights should be seen in a wider context that includes the attempt by the ACT government to force the sale of Calvary public hospital in Canberra, which is run by the Little Company of Mary. If it succeeds in this, other public hospitals run by religious organisations will be targeted next.

Lordy, that's as tempting a sales pitch as I've yet been offered for a bill of rights. With a bonus set of steak knives for offering up a double whammy - opposing the Pellist heresy and supporting human rights.

Can there be anything more in favor of a bill of rights?

A charter of rights, upfront or by Trojan Horse, will politicise the judiciary and erode the separation of powers by transferring legislative power to the courts.

Well not according to George Williams, and between Williams and Pell, why am I strangely drawn to Williams?

Perhaps one last gasp to bring me over to the side of Pell?

Neither a charter nor the Human Rights Commission will protect religious freedom, which is why so many religious people oppose both. Other Australians should do the same.

Other Australians should do the same? What, fall in to line with Pell and his abject support for conservative authoritarian mysticism of the worst papal kind?

Why am I reminded of a private joke between friends, involving "You people"?

"You people" is one of those tribal sayings that always establishes a gulf, a divide, that can't be bridged.

Go on, try it out. "You people" are always carrying on about gay rights, "You people" are always talking about a woman's right to control her body, "You people" are always into perverted sex, "You people" aren't from around here, are you?

Which is why it's so revealing that Pell should end his argument with: "You people" should do the same. As me and other religious folk.

Well you can rip that bible out of my cold dead hands any time you like.

Meanwhile, time to get working on my new and radical law of Pell: anything Pell's agin must be taken seriously, because if he's agin it, then I'm agin him aginning it. Or perhaps more simply, the enemy of a bill of rights is surely not my friend, even if suddenly I'm in the company of a Jesuit.

(Below: and will a bill of rights get in the road of giving harlots a good whipping? Must we put away decent honest tools of trade, as below, or at least save them for the bedroom?)